Cunningham v. Department of Justice

ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING CASE

BETH
BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS
CAUSE is before the Court upon the pro se
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis, ECF No. [3] (the “Motion”), filed
in conjunction with Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. [1]
(the “Complaint”). Plaintiff Cedric Cunningham
(“Plaintiff”) has not paid the required filing
fee and, thus, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) are applicable. The Court has carefully reviewed the
Complaint, the Motion, and the record in this case, and is
otherwise fully advised in the premises. For the reasons that
follow, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Motion is DENIED
AS MOOT.

Fundamental
to our justice system is that the courthouse doors will not
be closed to persons based on their inability to pay a filing
fee. Congress has provided that a court “may authorize
the commencement . . . or prosecution of any suit, action or
proceeding . . . or appeal therein, without the prepayment of
fees . . . therefore, by a person who submits an affidavit
that includes a statement of all assets such [person]
possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees . . .
.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see Martinez v.
Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306 n.1 (11th
Cir. 2004) (interpreting statute to apply to all persons
seeking to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”)).

Permission
to proceed in forma pauperis is committed to the
sound discretion of the court. Camp v. Oliver, 798
F.2d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Thomas v.
Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit, 574 Fed.Appx. 916, 916
(11th Cir. 2014) (“A district court has wide discretion
in ruling on an application for leave to proceed
IFP.”). However, “proceeding in forma
pauperis is a privilege, not a right.”
Camp, 798 F.2d at 437.

In
addition to the required showing that the litigant, because
of poverty, is unable to pay for the court fees and costs,
Martinez, 364 F.3d at 1307, upon a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis, the Court is required to examine
whether “the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint
satisfies any of the three enumerated circumstances under
Section 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss the complaint.

“A
claim is frivolous when it ‘has little or no chance of
success,' that is, when it appears ‘from the face
of the complaint that the factual allegations are clearly
baseless or that the legal theories are indisputably
meritless.'” Hoang v. DeKalb Housing
Authority, 2014 WL 1028926, at *1 (N.D.Ga. March 19,
2014) (quoting Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393
(11th Cir. 1993)); see Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989) (holding that a claim is frivolous
“where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact”).

Plaintiff's
Complaint must be dismissed because it is patently frivolous.
The Complaint consists of an unintelligible narrative
relating to a conspiracy to coerce Plaintiff into committing
a vehicular assault. The alleged scheme involves “a
scam on television … where Cedric Cunningham was
illegal[ly] wiretap[ped]” and coerced “through
witchcraft.” ECF No. [1] at 12. The alleged
participants in the scam include “the President of
Russia, ” “the Prince of England, ” and
“Robert Mueller.” Though the Court is sympathetic
to any unfair treatment Plaintiff may have experienced at the
hands of the law, it cannot ascertain any plausible claim for
relief against the Department of Justice from Plaintiff's
words. Plaintiff neither presents any actionable legal
theories nor identifies any comprehensible factual claims.

As
presented in the Complaint, Plaintiff's claims are
baseless and, thus, must be dismissed as frivolous. See
Jackson v. Arnold, 2014 WL 1783859, at *1 (S.D. Ga.
April 1, 2014) (“Jackson's complaint is subject to
immediate dismissal since it is patently frivolous. He
invokes no legal theory or statute, and relies on a facially
absurd ‘Affidavit' in which he declares himself a
‘living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, real man
who has formed a contract' with the defendants. . . . At
best he advances babbling nonsense.”) (quotation marks
omitted); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 696
(2009) (“The sole exception to this rule [that a court
must accept a complaint's allegations as true, no matter
how skeptical the court may be] lies with allegations that
are sufficiently fantastic to defy reality as we know it:
claims about little green men, or the plaintiff's recent
trip to Pluto, or experiences in time travel.”);
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (under
28 U.S.C. § 1915, a federal court may dismiss a
complaint whose factual contentions describe “fantastic
or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal judges are
all too familiar”); Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328
(a complaint is legally frivolous when it contains
“claims of infringement of a legal interest which
clearly does not exist”); Gallop v. Cheney,
642 F.3d 364, 366, 368-69 (2d Cir. 2011) (district court
properly sua sponte dismissed complaint as factually
frivolous where plaintiff alleged that senior government
officials caused the September 11, 2001 attacks); Davis
v. Kvalheim, 261 Fed.Appx. 231, 234 (11th Cir. 2008)
(holding that complaint may be dismissed before service of
process where its legal theories are indisputably meritless).

Accordingly,
it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows 1 The
Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.

2. Plaintiffs Motion, ECF No. [3], is
DENIED AS MOOT.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE
this case.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DONE
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.